Yes, good old Milton - the issue with this rationale is that the theory does not work like that in practice. What is stopping the Dutch with $10 minimum wages (high - at least comparing to the US), plus a myriad of other labour force protective laws, to have reasonably low unemployment even in the time of crisis in the EU (I think it is about 6.5%), and a highly skilled and paid workforce? There are various other drivers in the society that make it more divided, and that in it's own way is a long discussion with various points and opinions.

Dutch economy is halted by temp work, nobody gets a contract so nobody can mortgage a house or a car or a boat...the money is there but nobody spends it.

Houses were way overpriced but this only could happen due to banks financing up to 110% of the value of a house (or even more).

Now, all of a sudden you need to save for your new hip, pay off the mortgage (instead of partially) and collect less unemployment for a shorter time in case... So people sit on their wallet. Car sales 36% down. One after another store goes bust. In my country there is no cashflow! Plenty of cash but no flow.

Minimum wage laws on their own are not a good point for "wrong regulation", as there is plenty of other regulation that is more damaging (at least in my view) to the ability to employ, or give a chance to the "not-haves" in order to succeed in the society.

Minimum wages should be relative to maximum wages. So if the president of a company wants more he needs to make more to pay more.

If you let companies decide on what to happen we all end up being slaves.

Both countries are having issues, and by the looks of it, some Americans would have a lot longer life if nothing else - if they were living in Cuba.

You are the victim of falsification and distortion of statistics by Cuba:

But perhaps some Americans would live longer in Cuba. Especially those who, in the U.S. (but not Cuba) can afford to abuse themselves (and sometimes their unborn babies) with alcohol and drugs. One of the flaws in using infant mortality as a proxy for Health Care delivery is that even the best Health care can't counteract a low birth weight babyborn to a mother who has abused herself with drugs and alcohol. Do you suppose a "crack baby" born in the U.S. would fare better if born in Cuba?

US clearly has issues in certain parts of the population, while Cubans are really third world, the main reason they are put up in those discussions is that they are even comparable on some points, which is not what one would expect. If you wanted to compare fairly, or in order to learn something, you would need to pick up some other develped country at this stage which gets superior results in terms of healthcare.. some countries like Japan, Norway or Germany, The Netherlands would be good as well. The Netherlands especially on drugs laws, the impact on their society and the ability for them to control it better with more reasonable regulation that they have in place, most of the world could learn from them in that respect.

That is a good example of "indirect" regulation which has direct impact on healthcare and other aspects of the society, but as such will "never?" or no time soon get on the discussion table in most places.

It is interesting when you compare life expectancy by US States, they range is from 81 years in Hawaii to 75 years in Mississippi. Pretty wide gap, and a four year gap behind Cubans in some of those "red states".

Comparing the methodology of data collection and analysis between the U.S. and Cuba as equivalent is not justified (see above references). Communist Regimes have long be expert at manipulating demographic data (see above reference's which you still have not obviously read).

I did read it, and one can say "fair enough" as Cuba is not a bastion of transparency, but again - how much can they manipulate it - 2 years, 4 years, more? In any case you if one wants to make a fair comparison, US should be compared vs other developed nations and Cuba is not exactly a type of society that anyone is striving for (except maybe environmentalists, as Cubans do have by far the lowest environmnetnal footprint for a nation with reasonably high life expectancy and Human Development Index ) ...

Another interesting point - if you were in the state that voted for Obama on the last elections, you can expect to live 2 years longer .

Are you suggesting a cause and effect? Good Grief....

That was funny - at least for me , but in principle the real issue is a pretty wide disparity that you have in life expectancy across the union, 6 years from top state to the bottom one, is a lot.

One way or another - there are issues everywhere, and making healthcare coverage more universal does not mean that you have to have Obama as a dictator for next 50 years. There is a middle ground, but current rethoric that I see coming from the US is "me - me - me - and the others can screw themselves"

That's not the majority of Americans..

It only looks like that, farily often wither in the media or reading what general people post here, or elsewhere, but I certainly hope it is not the majority.

, which despite of still very high economic production is leaving your country a very divided place, and in many cases like the third world, an "us and them" society.

Have you seen the statistics on the U.S. being a "divided place" since the election of the Divider -in-Chief?

Well those stats on life expectancy of race + education factor, are a good indication, and btw that grew a lot in last 20 years, including the years of the divider-in- Chief, so if anything I would not think that things look like they are getting better with the current admin.

Solution to it is accountability, transparency in a system which provides for both the rich and the poor,

Yep.

As N. Pelosi said regarding the ineptly named "Affordable" Care Act, "you need to pass it to see what's in it". And this under a President who promised transparency, and that any bill would be on the Internet and/or C-span for enough time to have it reviewed by the public. A lie of the first order.

RB

Unfortunatley, transparency is what is missing in most of the developed world, it feels like we had more of it towards the end of 20th century, and in this new one the population is getting less and less, by design. It for sure does not look good.

but you seem to be very resistant on doing anything to help anyone else out.

Who is the "you" that you are referring to? Helping out with what? Healthcare?

Obamacare as drafted, is rife with special treatment for special interests and favored groups, including the ability for some groups to opt out, and other groups not.

You - as in the US at large, that goes with the predominant mantra of "everyone for themselves", at least it looks that way, and is getting more vocal from what I can tell.

Obamacare is severely watered down, and you have to wait for the implementation to see how it turns out, you have to start somewhere. However this is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, the real issue is with transparency and accountability, so that myriad of special interest groups can feed on US taxpayers money on this topic and many others, for nothing but a fraction of resulting profits being funneled back as lobbying money.

That is probably one of the most profitable investment anyone can make, US based or international - lobbying money for US congressmen and senators, ROI on laws passed which ensure that US taxpayers money is funneled into your (sponsors) coffers is enormous.

It is ruining you, but it is also runing the rest of the world by default, given the importance of US as a partner, economic or otherwise and the fact that if you lobby US lawmakers successfully, you already sorted your own ones at home, as state department will ensure that whatever is the US position gets followed by the rest of the "friendly" world, as is the case on most issues.

Just the new American way, or was it a dream?

Part of the emerging "New American Way" is in some ways reminiscent of the Old (Failed) Socialist Ways..

There is a continuum from anarchy to dictatorship, from fully free market to state planned economy, and other aspects... various social and political setups fall on different sides of those spectrums.

Still many nations which would be defined as socialist - such as Norway, Sweden, or most of the central European ones, are nothing if not successful, while many captialist ones like the ones in old Latin America (before recent socialist quiet or not so quiet revolutions) could be seen as failed. Even a Communist country as China can be seen as successful...